COLLEGIUM DEPARTMENT OF THE PERITI - Magistrate BERTI ANDREA and Captain BARNI FILIPPO Key to abbreviations AN Alessandro Nencini Judge President AB Dr Andrea Berti Witness being questioned Carabinieri officer PB Capt. Dr. Filippo Barni Witness being questioned Carabinieri officer CP Carlo Pacelli Lumumba civil lawyer Lawyer B.C Alessandro Crini Prosecutor Public minister GB Giulia Bongiorno Solicited defense lawyer Lawyer FM Francesco Maresca Counsel for Kercher family (civilian plaintiffs) Lawyer LG Luciano Ghirga Knox defense lawyer Lawyer Please make yourselves comfortable. Then, of course, remember that you are always under the oath of faithfully fulfilling the assignment that was entrusted to you. You have filed a written report, which is in the availability of the Parties. So, to begin, to break the ice of this exam, we can start from the relationship, in short... Yup.... from what you have found. Do you start, Major? Yes. First I ask you to be able to consult some of the report's acts during the show. Of course he has the right. Then, the assignment that was given to us on October 4 essentially involved assigning a track marked with the letter I found on the number 36 and if this trace is identifiable - I read directly from the question - the DNA referring to victim Meredith Kercher, or condemned Rudy Hermann Guede. If the sample was not immediately available, it was the Obligations of the Experts to notify the Court. Subsequently, on October 25, we demanded an integration with the President to make comparisons even with the two accused persons, then Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Marie Knox, which clearly
came. Technical operations began on 10 October at 2:00 pm at the RIS headquarters in Rome. The Consultants of the Party were present, as in the minutes, and we jointly went to the Forensic Genetics Laboratory of the Department of Legal Medicine and Insurances at the University of Rome La Sapienza, headed by Professor Vecchiotti - because these were the indications - where I was kept. Indeed, we could directly verify that, upon the professor's statement, there was a sample I and in particular there was a carton box contained within a freezer fridge, which we clearly identified. This box contained a series of test tubes and among these - even after direct examination by Professor Vecchiotti, who was present - we were shown a test tube bearing an "I" and then identified as "sample I". In the instant we could only verify that there was a certain amount of transparent liquid, so we could then pick it up and transport it to our laboratories for further analysis. In order to verify how the sample was kept, we initially asked Professor if as a practice there was a recording of the pre-tempered temperatures of the freezer. Professor essentially said they were not available, he did not have this temperature recording system. What we did is, with a certified system, a certified thermometer, we have verified that the storage temperature at that time was around -20, thus meeting the specific requirements for the storage of that type of sample. So this is what we have been able to verify. So, once we identified the "sample I", we went to our laboratories, and in the presence of the Parties we started operations. Clearly, the location of the "track I" from which the "sample I" is derived is identifiable through the view of the expert's work carried out by Professor Vecchiotti. We have reported it to page 12 of our report. Professor Vecchiotti in his report indicates two samples "I" and "H" made - I read clearly by quoting exactly the words - "made at the point of contact between the blade and the handle on the opposing sides of the knife", clearly referring to the "sample I "and" H sample ". So this was, as claimed by the previous Experts, the origin of "sample I". So we went to our laboratories and on the same day of the 10th we began the technical laboratory operations, which in the first place we realized the measurement of the volume inside the test tube and the quantification of the DNA found in this tube. Volume measurements were made using a typical molecular biology laboratory, so a pipette, a direct measurement system, which led us to estimate a residual volume within the tube of about 16-17 microlitres, so a quantity extremely small, however, as a volume. Also due to this reduced volume we decided to quantify the sample, and then determine what was the concentration of the sample inside the test tube, and we did it with one of the currently available systems, in particular a Real Time PCR system, using a Qiagen kit called the Quantiplex Hyres Kit, which is - in our view - one of the most powerful currently available for to establish precisely the concentration of a forensic sample. This activity allowed us to estimate a sample concentration - reported in the attached reports - of 2.14 picograms / microlitre, which is an extremely small amount, all in line with those that were the previous evaluations of the previous expertise. Previous expertise Vecchiotti had estimated a concentration of 5 picograms / microlitre. Then reading the acts actually 5 picograms is the fruit of an average of several measurements. Let's say they are comparable as quantity. In any case, it is an extremely small amount. The smallness of this concentration - as we say - brings with it that the sample we would have to analyze was in a complex analysis situation, so we did not have such high sample availability to conduct a standard analysis. This complex situation, say, for a number of aspects, also depending on the quantity, takes the name of the Low Copy Number sample, Low Template DNA, however complex sample in analysis. So, in view of this first evaluation, the sample we had available was a complex sample, we decided on a strategy that in some way assured us at least some reliability in any outputs produced. This strategy basically results in the use of highly performing analysis systems, so very powerful analysis kits, and on the other, another requirement that we have set is to duplicate the analysis on the same sample,
then repeat at least twice the analyzes on the same sample. These were the first indications as a work plan, basically shared by the Consultants present. So we did the analysis so we basically - and here I use technical terms - amplified the sample twice, under the same conditions, then using the same thermal temperature cycle, the same sequencer, and we got two genetic profiles, so the two repetitions, two genetic profiles, attributable to "sample I". At this point, let's say, the purely analytic phase is over. So the "sample I" was no longer there, no residual sample existed. We have the results and therefore these two genetic profiles, which we clearly then translate into what is the genetic profile of the track, which is a sequence of numbers, whose composition exactly matches what is the analytical result of the analysis. And we can see, for more clarity, the table on page 54 of our report. The first two columns highlight the results of the PCR analysis of typing the two replicas, so the first column is "genetic profile from DNA typing from first amplification," "genetic profile from DNA typing from second amplification." So we got - on page 54 there is the synthesis - these two genetic profiles. The first thing that emerges is basically the absence of any male trace. This can be highlighted because, if we go to the line that corresponds to sex, to the Melogenine, we get both replicas a signal of the X chromosome. As we know, a male subject also has a signal on chromosome Y. So we did not highlight any male component. Further, this information was already deducible from quantification, because quantification allows estimating both total concentration and male concentration. Even then, the male amount was basically zero. So these two information led us to believe the genetic profile obtained from this repeated sample as attributable to one or more female subjects. This was the first conclusion. a male subject also has a signal on chromosome Y. So we did not highlight any male component. Further, this information was already deducible from quantification, because quantification allows estimating both total concentration and male concentration. Even then, the male amount was basically zero. So these two information led us to believe the genetic profile obtained from this repeated sample as attributable to one or more female subjects. This was the first conclusion. a male subject also has a signal on chromosome Y. So we did not highlight any male component. Further, this information was already deducible from quantification, because quantification allows estimating both total concentration and male concentration. Even then, the male amount was basically zero. So these two information led us to believe the genetic profile obtained from this repeated sample as attributable to one or more female subjects. This was the first conclusion. Even then, the male amount was basically zero. So these two information led us to believe the genetic profile obtained from this repeated sample as attributable to one or more female subjects. This was the first conclusion. Even then, the male amount was basically zero. So these two information led us to believe the genetic profile obtained from this repeated sample as attributable to one or more female subjects. This was the first conclusion. At this point, we have clearly gone ahead in the course of the question and we have, as it were said, the interpretation of the results obtained from this first phase. The approach we have followed is a combined approach, which in our opinion is - as we say - more conservative than all parties, to all the problems associated with this type of analysis. We have distinguished a biological approach, which is basically an approach that, starting from this table with these numbers, compares these numbers with the corresponding genetic profiles of the people to be compared - hence the victim, the convicted person and the defendants - and it essentially points out the presence or absence of the same numeric value. This approach has clearly been possible by combining and interpreting the results obtained from the analysis of this trace. I'll explain. Why did we repeat the analysis? Because we know that repeating
the analysis means finally getting a more reliable result. How do we get a more reliable result? Basically - again apologize if I'm too technical, but it is necessary - going to look for similarities between the two reps. This comparison and interpretation system is called "consensus profile". That is, if we have a value attributed in the first amplification that is repeated in the second, the resulting consensus profile will only return that signal that has been repeated in both analyzes. Let's make an example even clearer. If the first amplification gave us a value of 15, the second of 15 and 16, the consensus profile will be 15 and not 16 because it was not repeated in the two amplifications. But we did not stop at this type of analysis, because in the literature there is another type of interpretation, always on the biological model, which instead has an opposite approach, for certain senses, instead of only taking what is confirmed in the two analyzes takes everything that has been analyzed, so in our case; 15, 15-16; the composite profile will be the composition of the two profiles, so 15 and 16. And in the report - clearly then if we need to explain it in detail - we explained why we wanted to approach the analysis of these paths with both profiles. Let's say, So in the end we got a composite profile and a consensus profile. These were compared to the genetic profiles of the people we saw earlier in the assignment. The comparison had an immediate result, so positive / negative, that we translated the presence or absence of the same allele. And by going through the various subjects, if we begin on page 56 of our report, we see that for the victim, Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, if we compare the alleles of the victim's profile with those of the consensus profile, we find that only five alleles, five values on the twenty available were concordant. If we make this comparison with the composite profile, then considering all the alleles, the concordance increases up to ten alleles on the available winds. There are also percentages. Clearly, on the other hand, the discordance is clearly the complement, so we found a discord between the alleles of the victim and the profiles of "trace I", fifteen on the twenty for the consensus profile and ten on the winds. So a respective percentage of 75% and 50%, so clearly - slightly anticipating our conclusions - a clear discrepancy between the profile of the victim and the profiles obtained from the track. We did the same thing with Rudy Hermann Guede's profile. Even in this case the discordance was remarkable, the discrepancy we found was that fourteen values on eighteen were different for the consensus profile, and eleven out of eighteen were different for the composite profile, with a percentage of about 78% and 61% in the two cases; so even in this case a significant discrepancy between the two profiles. Going on, on page 60, we came up against Raffaele Sollecito's genetic profile. In this case the discordances were of eighteen discordant alleles on available winds, hence a 90% consensus discordance, and fourteen alleles over twenty with respect to the composite profile, with a percentage of 70%. So these three subjects show a remarkable discrepancy if compared to the results obtained from the "sample I". We come to the confrontation with the genetic profile of Amanda Marie Knox. In this case, the concordance of the alleles was, for the consensus profile, of fifteen values over eighteen available, thus a concordance of 83%. If we compare the profile of Amanda Marie Knox with the composite profile we get a 100% concordance, eighteen values on eighteen match. And clearly the discordance is complementary. If we go to see what are the three values that do not match the consensus profile, we find that there are three alleles in the D16 region in the D8 and D18 regions, which in one of the two replicas are lost, while in another replies are present. This is a well-known phenomenon in literature, just for these complex samples, so the possibility of losing values in a complex profile - this phenomenon takes the name of allelic dropout, allelic loss of value - is a known phenomenon and therefore we - as we say - for a
number of reasons that we will later see we have attributed to this phenomenon. So the complex sample in one of the two replicas lost these three values, these three alleles, but in the composite profile, however, they are 100% compatible. So these are the results. So it appears evident that from this first analysis three subjects show great divergences, a subject shows remarkable affinities. That is, let's say, as you have seen, a purely computational model, present / not present, so it is - like saying - a scoring, a numeric value, that value is present, that value is not present. We did not stop at this kind of approach and we went ahead. We also - as the scientific literature reports - conducted a statistical approach, so we tried to understand, even in cases where there was discordance, more or less high, if this discordance was... how to say, what was the degree of probability that this discordance was real, or due to some phenomena. And this was only possible thanks to the application of a statistical method, then realized with a software analysis in our availability. This statistical software, compared to the present / not present, probable also the absence, that is, gives us an indication of the fact: what is the probability that the value actually exists, but I do not see why it was lost; so it also probable these phenomena. This software we applied is called LRmix. It's a lot... how to say, it is certainly a novel software, although there are many works already in scientific literature, developed with Peter Gill, who I believe is the greatest expert, or one of the forensic top expert at present - as it is said - currently present on the international scene, and with him, together with the NFI, which is the Dutch forensic institute with which we are in close collaboration, we have, for some time now, been collaborating in the development and validation of this software, which we have applied in this case too. I repeat, now I quickly get a shot, then if there are specific questions about the application and the parameters used in this software we can go into detail. What I think you need to understand is that this software - I repeat - goes to estimate a probability, or rather, it goes to estimate what is called "weight of evidence", so it compares two hypotheses. Assumption A: given the evidence, what is the probability that the person I want to compare actually contributed with his DNA to the trace formation? the hypothesis classically defined as a defensive hypothesis is that instead that subject has not contributed to the formation of the trace. So we have two hypotheses: the subject has contributed; the subject did not contribute. The value we get, called LR, is a value that weighs two hypotheses. Of course, a very high value, so higher - we will see - at 104, so a very high value, indicates that the accusatory hypothesis is far more reasonable than the defensive one; on the contrary, a very low value, indicates that the so-called defensive hypothesis is the one to be preferred. Then the calculation of the LR is the result of the analysis with this software and gives us an estimate of what is the weight of the two hypotheses we want to explore: the subject is present in the track or the subject is not present. For understanding, I think it is useful to see a table that has been developed - even here - by the entire scientific community and that is a conversion table, compared to a numerical value, of a verbal expression, so it also helps in the discussion to understand and translate verbally. Then on page 43 of our report we show the verbal equivalence table, in which we compare the value of LR, which, I repeat, is the result of our statistical analysis - the value we do not get from statistical analysis is a LR that weighs both hypotheses - and verbal correspondence. As you can see, the indication that comes to us when the value of LR is much, much smaller than 0.001, so 10-4 more or less, the verbal equivalence suggested by the literature is "extremely strong support to the hypothesis of exclusion ". Then the first line indicates: If the LR value you get from this statistical analysis is very low, so much less than 1, the expression in profile interpretation is "very strong indication of exclusion". Conversely, if the value of LR is very high, more than 104, the expression we must use in our conclusion is an "extremely strong support for identification". So if the value is very low, far less than 1, exclusion; very high, great support for identification. And this explains all the results we
have obtained with the second part of our interpretation, which concerns precisely the estimate of the value of LR between the various subjects and the trace. Synthetically, this analysis starts on page 68 of our report, in which the two hypotheses and the value of LR are reported in detail for each marker; on page 68 it is highlighted what is the value of LR. Then, again, the value of LR is a dimensional value that weighs two hypotheses: the subject is present, the subject is not present. They are, say, synthetic, for understanding. If you see the third column, the last line, where "product" is written, you see that the overall LR value in the case of comparison between the victim and the trace is 1.8x10-5, therefore an extremely low value. Extremely low, if you remember the table we saw, "great support for exclusion hypothesis". Same thing we did for Rudy Hermann Guede. The value in this case is 1x10-10, but we do not care about the value itself, as the order of magnitude, so 10-10 is an extremely low value, again "great support for the exclusion hypothesis. Then, in the case of Rudy Hermann Guede, clearly, being the non-caucasian subject, we also made corrections based on the reference population, which, I repeat, is a detail on which we can enter later. In the case of Raffaele Sollecito, in this case, the overall value of LR is 9x10-13, so here too an extremely low value, "great support for the exclusion hypothesis". In the case instead of Amanda Marie Knox, the overall value of LR is in one case, 8x108, so 108, an extremely high value; even here we have made a series of - as it were - alternative hypotheses that we can explain, however, the value of LR is much higher than 1, so compared to that verbal conversion table, "great support for the subject's inclusion hypothesis in track". So, in essence, we have tried to interpret the results we obtained from "sample I" with two approaches. The first, as you have seen, is purely computational binary, presence / non presence, how many are present, how many are not present. The second is statistical: what is the case between the two assumptions - the subject is present in the sample, the subject is not present - which is, on the basis of these calculations, the most favorable hypothesis. We have put together this information, so - how to say - our final answer is the result of the combination of these two approaches. And so we come to the concluding part, in which we summarized the findings. Bearing in mind that, with regard to the victim, Rudy Hermann Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, we have highlighted numerous discrepancies between the genetic profile of the trace and the profiles of these people; We note, however, that in the case of Amanda Knox, we have shown a lot of concordance between the profile of "sample I" and that of the subject; I note, however, that the statistical evaluation strongly supports the exclusion of these three subjects, I repeat, the victim, Rudy Hermann Guede and Raffaele Sollecito, the exclusion of these subjects from contributing to this trace; On the other hand, as we have said, we strongly support the hypothesis that Amanda Marie Knox is present as a contributing factor in the formation of the trace and therefore her genetic profile is present in the genetic profile that we have obtained from the "sample I". These are our findings, say, with a general view. Thank you, it was very clear. Does your colleague need to do some work now, or do we have to resign...? PB: President, I clearly associate myself with what my colleague said. Then clearly available for further insights.
Sure, you did them together. All right. Then I would say we proceed with the order, if there are any questions, with the order provided by the code, starting from the Public Ministry. Public minister Good morning. So, as far as I'm concerned, I read carefully and listened carefully, so let's say, from the point of view of the content of the elaborate and the conclusions at the moment I have no big doubts or knots to dissolve. Here, I just wanted to ask you a clarification, which is this: here's, since obviously this theme also refers to skills in some way - no? - That this type of activity of yours obviously sets in motion, here, I wanted to know this: is there a criterion, say, through which these skills are somehow appreciable, on the level of an evaluation of the single laboratory? That is, how is RIS having this particular characterization? Is there a verification of this, in the sense that there is an accreditation activity, is there something...? Because, in short, now the network makes it quite easy to supply certain items. So, here, I'm curious about this. As I hear, say, two officers of the Carabinieri who speak so competent, here I wanted to understand this thing here, on the institutional level what kind of rooting has, here's how to formalize such a situation, that is, which institutes are competent for this and, let's say, how does this happen? Here, if you can clarify this aspect. ie what are the institutes that are competent to this and, let's say, how does this happen? Here, if you can clarify this aspect. ie what are the institutes that are competent to this and, let's say, how does this happen? Here, if you can clarify this aspect. Yes, let's say, for the first aspect clearly the premise we have to make is that our competence clearly derives from our professional profile, which is a requirement at the time of enlistment, so we are biologists who have been enrolled within the Arma of Carabinieri. And what about the structure, RIS? Then, RIS started a certification and certification path in 2008, so in 2008 it got the ISO 9001 certification, and then in 2012 got the accreditation - the Laboratory of Rome, the Biology Section - 17025, on two methods test. Here, this second one interests me. What is this accreditation? So, basically in general, when it comes to certification and accreditation, we want to mean compliance with certain requirements imposed by the standard, that is accreditation. Then the lab proves that it complies with requirements written in a standard. In this case the footprint is 17025.
Here it is. How is this compliance demonstrated? Through inspection visits by third parties, in this case there is only one entity in Italy, which is able to do so, which is Accredia. Accreditation, yes, yes. Therefore, Accredia basically sends inspectors with a competent professional profile and relevant to the matter being inspected, carries out inspections and verifies that the laboratory meets a number of requirements ranging from structural, logistical, and clearly analytical aspects, how the test is conducted, how the tools are handled, and so on. So this is an aspect that, say, integrates and exceeds the old ISO 9001? That is, it is a different profile. Well, there is a fundamental difference. Here it is. That is, ISO 9001 is a rule that focuses on management aspects. Management. That is, how the workflows are run within the structure, so for the 9001 any business that does other things can also be certified. So it certifies workflow management, so as the sample arrives, as we practice it, this is the management. While... While the 17025 is specific to test labs, then labs that do analysis.
Here it is. And in our case specific forensic analysis. I get it. And the normative source of this...? There are international regulations. International, here. Yes. The 17025 is an international standard, just like the 9001. Here it is. This type of accreditation - then the ratings on the content you have already done, but in fact, the data I'm interested in - is this kind of accreditation for this specific subject matter particularly extensive at national level, which you know? Who knows who he is... But, let's say it's not that I have particular knowledge. I know that in Italy there are certainly 9001 many hospitals. No, I'm referring to... Sure. Many hospital holdings are certified 9001. On accreditation in the forensic field, some private labs, some universities believe... or are working on this accreditation, especially on paternity tests. As far as government agencies are concerned, the Carabinieri Weapon has our own accredited laboratory, Parma RIS is accrediting. I believe that the State Police has just concluded, or is, in any case, concluding this accreditation process. No, he is accredited. Ah.
Yes Yes Yes. Here it is. This is the information I have. The information you have is these, so the RIS of Rome is accredited, the RIS of Parma is accrediting, believe that the State Police is also accredited. Is that so? Exact. Perfect. Then he is accredited - let's say, for the record - even the University of Florence, but that, I mean... Yes, yes, in fact I have also said other university institutes. Yes, this one here, here... for the Careggi Hospital, which, let's say, is not too far from this structure. And then I would not have much to do with anything else. Here, I said that. Here, I'm talking about the technical aspects of the exam, I have listened with attention and interest, I read and I have no particular reasons to ask for further clarification. Here, I was interested in finding this particular element-so to speak-that somehow accredited... Qualification, let's say... That accredit, here's......of the structure.... so to speak, work. Good. Thank you. The Civil Parties? Civilian Party - Maresca Lawyer
FM: No question, President. Civilian Party - Lawyer Pacelli CP: No question. For everyone. Here it is. Please, the Defenders? Solicited Defense - Bongiorno Attorney Very few, President. Yes. Defense... kindly, for registration, if you say who you are when you are talking, why then then it becomes difficult to find the record in the transcript. Yes. I am Giulia Bongiorno's Defense Counsel for Raffaele Sollecito. Perfect. Only a few clarifications above the theme of amplification. You did two amplifications in this case. I would like to understand: if one amplification is made, then are there margins of unreliability? What is the reason why they do two? Because all scientific literature, in the context of complex sample analysis, suggests - it is strongly advised - to repeat the sample analysis at least once. Eh, but if I do only amplify what is happening? Increase the risk that the results I get are not completely reliable.
Is it different to make an amplification than doing electrophoretic racing? Yup. Can you explain the difference, please? Because in the expertise... it is very important to understand this difference for us. Then, amplification is basically a reaction in which the initial sample is placed in an instrument called PCR Amplifier along with some reagents. This... the repetition of thermal cycles allows you to create copies from the initial sample. This is amplification. Perfect. Once we get this final product, called "amplified," the amplified, to be analyzed, is inserted into a device called Sequencer, and then an electrophoretic run is performed, which is essentially an electrophoresis, so a passage in a field... a potential difference, where the DNA, the product I got from the amplification, moves and reaches a detection system that then lets me detect the product I got. Even if we have a very small track, can we repeat it many times, if we have a very small track? Thing? The amplification. Well, clearly the amplification needs to add a sample, the sample I'm analyzing, so it depends on the volume available. In this case, our available volume was about 16-17 microlitres. We decided to divide it in two and repeat it twice. Clearly... So you could split into two this kind of little particle, this... you managed to divide it into two. Yes, it's a volume...
It's a sufficient volume, here it is. Theoretically also two microliters can divide it into two. It is clear that I have to - as I say - observe that if I do seventeen repetitions I can put a single microlitre, so the probability of getting a success is limited. Another thing. Instead, with regard to the quantification chapter, you defined it as "fundamental quantification" in your work. Why is sample quantification crucial? Because this - as we say - allows us to establish a work plan consistent with what the expected results are, because quantification is true that it does not give us an accurate estimate of quantity, but gives us an indication. So if I am facing a sample with a standard concentration, my work plan will be adapted to a standard analysis; if the indication I get is a very small sample, my work plan is appropriate to this type of situation. Another thing. You then gave the Advisers the so-called negative, positive, and row date controls. Are these elements important? Well, let's say... What are they for? They need to verify that the analysis does not have problems... for example, the negative control is that there is no contaminating DNA during the reaction, so they have not been elements already... elements on which we already have DNA prior to reaction. Positive checks allow us to verify that the goodness of the analysis has been carried out correctly. The row data is the raw data that also allows anyone who has the software to analyze these samples later, to analyze them how often they want, even remotely. So do they also serve for the Consultants, to make their controls these elements? Yup.
I get it. You have applied the Likelihood Ratio method, as far as statistical calculation is concerned. The Random Man Not Excluded method is a method that would be... which is applicable, which you consider useful or not? What method is this method? PB: Yes, we would say it would be possible to apply this methodology as well. We say that other methods could also be applied; Clearly we have preferred the most informative methodology and the most recommended methodology from international guidelines, particularly coded in two publications, one in 2006 and one in 2012. However, the reference method for biostatistic data analysis should usually be that of 'analysis... of the assessment of the likelihood ratio, that is, the index of LR. Another thing. In the field of expertise and even today in the oral presentation, you often refer to these international recommendations. Can you explain exactly what kind of weight do you have in your work? PB: The international recommendations are clearly guidelines, which obviously are not binding on the Italian legislation, which is obviously not codified in a rule of law, but obviously, as far as good laboratory practice is concerned, I would like to emphasize the good laboratory practice, it would be essential to adhere to these guidelines in full, or at least as far as possible, for the potential of the specific laboratory. However, it would be advisable to fully adhere to these recommendations. Thank you, I have no other questions. Thank you, Lawyer. Are there any other questions? Defense Knox - Lawyer From Widow Yes, AN, Lawyer From Widow to Knox. I'm just making the details, it seems to me that the report is complete and above all, the illustration today was very precise by Major AB and Captain Barni. In the last clarification I wanted to ask for clarification on the international guidelines because I noticed that the report refers to literature, quotes manuals, institute quotes, and I have noticed that they are all foreigners, all the literature you mentioned in your report, with the exception of Professor Tagliabracci's work on page 8, but then all other literature on pages 8 and 9 and pages 87, 88 and 89 is all foreign literature. Then I ask you: Do you follow the international protocols more closely? Well, let's say that I do not think - as I shall say - I do not really want to diminish the publication of Professor Tagliabracci, because the publication that he made had an adhesion by all associations of Italian forensic genetists, so it is not a simple publication but actually it is - as we say - a scapegoat of our work. Both Ge.FI and SIMLA, the associations in Italy, have adhered to this publication to which we refer. It is clear that in the summerfearing - how to say - the associations that dictate some of the guidelines around the world are what we try to translate. Ge.FI, which is the Italian Forensic Genetics Association,
is in fact simply the Italian group of an international association called ISFG, so it is not two disjointed things, But it can be said that in the DNA, as it is an evolving matter, it can be said that the doctrine and practice, and what he termed "good laboratory work", is now referring to standards, to lines guide who are mostly foreign? Yes, of course, the recommendations are the result of an international community, clearly, to which we participate, I repeat, and are directed to the entire scientific community. For example, refer to page 15 to an American institute of Washington, which is the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is part of the National Institute of American Justice. Yup. So your Carabinieri Laboratory applies the handbooks because I've seen... the guidelines of this institute, or anyway follow it. Well, we referred... Your colleague said they are not binding, from the point of view that they are not mandatory by law, but by good laboratory practice you followed these foreign instructions. Well, we refer to the specific case of sample retention. We have taken one of the many publications; the IST, the US Standard and Technology Institute, has no purely American value, but it is definitely international because, apart from organizing it... it is one of the few institutes in the world that produces standards for comparative tests in all laboratories in the world, so it has a truly global reach for this institute. So we have referred to one of these publications, in particular on sample conservation. And yet again it is known that bibliographic references on pages 88, 86 and 89 are all in English and therefore foreign, so, so...
As an attorney, I apologize, it seems to me that there are more comments from discussion than questions, in the sense that it seemed to me to understand that for the "international community" is meant a condominium of which many condominiums, including us. So if that is so, then determining which single condom we turn from time to time may be interesting but in the discussion, not from the point of view of the survey that is now being investigated. It seems to me to understand this. Yes exactly. In the sense, if there were Americans, would we still be able to do something? Absolutely. Yes. That's what we wanted to understand. After that, we are grateful to the Americans, we would miss it, we have always been, we will continue to be, but we can do something without it. Thanks, AN. But my point was not to make a comparison, it was to understand, especially you of the Court, where today is the knowledge on this matter, because the DNA... It's a bit everywhere, Lawyer. It seems to me that it's a bit everywhere. And then Americans also use intelligence from other countries, I think I understand, that is, I believe that today's current situation is difficult to encircle within borders, especially in the scientific sphere, purely national. Someone tries us, of course, but I do not think with great results. So I think we can seriously say that the international scientific community is composed a little by all those who practice a certain discipline. Beyond that belief can not go. Yes. On this point, do you also apply European Protocols, that is, as a European community? Does Italy follow European guidelines? With respect to what matter specifically? Compared to the analysis of DNA, your activity in scientific biologists. We are...
That is, is there a European institute? Are there any protocols? Are there any manuals? Well, let's say, being accredited or certified in itself refers to a European and international standard, so... Here it is. It goes without saying that we refer to that. Thank you. On this subject I concluded. But I wanted to ask for clarification. When on page 20 you state that "if there are stochastic or random effects these do not really reflect the profile; this means that the analysis of a - in this case we talk about the Low Template Copy Number - does not really reflect the profile actually present in the track "; can you explain this better? That is, what does it mean that the attribution of this "track I" to Amanda does not really reflect the true profile? And above all I wanted you to clarify the value of a Low Template Copy Number. So let's say that it's actually exactly the opposite, that is, we know that an analysis of a complex sample generates a complex profile; complex means that there may be phenomena, widely described as stochastic or other effects, which, compared to a real value apparently what I observe during the analysis, is an incomplete value. Let's take an example. If the attributed value - returning to the previous example - is 15-18, being the complex sample I could observe or only 18, or only 15, and in extreme cases none of the two. This is the complexity. Because otherwise, if I had values, how to say, consolidated, there would be no problem of interpreting it and there would be no problem repeating it. If I do an analysis and get a clear and unambiguous profile, we do not talk about complex samples and we do not talk about interpretation. So the complex sample is by definition a sample in which these phenomena occur. But, sorry, I understand that. But the question was this... No, I'm coming. You are welcome. Sorry.
So the complex situation is: in front of real values 15-18 I can observe either the 15th, or the 18th, or none of them. So I could stop this observation and say, that value is not present. But in fact we know - and the whole scientific community knows it - that this absence could be attributed to the complexity of the sample. How do we statistically weigh this event? Just with the statistical approach, which probable the drop-out event, or drop-in, on that sample. So it is not my opinion, but it is the result of a statistical analysis that weighs the probability that the real value is actually 5-18. And that is precisely why - as we have said - we have statistically traced the track to evaluate these events. Otherwise, I repeat, if I stopped at the simple numerical view, Major AB, when on page 82 I read that "the remaining allelic components not attributable to Amanda Knox, such as suggesting a genetic blend state" - and then makes two hypotheses - "may be due to a limited contribution of a second subject, or by drop-in phenomena ". Can you tell me statistically what is the percentage of these two hypotheses, in this specific reference? Because then she says that this... "such allelic signs are not sufficiently qualitatively and quantitatively suited to the personal identification of another individual in relation to confrontations with Kercher, Guede and Solicitude." So what I ask you: is it possible that when she says there is another contribution, is it really a drop-in phenomenon? And what percentage? The question... that is, the answer we can give is not the chance in that drop-in trace. It is if the comparison between a subject and that track can be affected by these phenomena and to what extent. So it's always a confrontation with other people. That is, establishing the likelihood of a drop-in a priori we did, in the sense is a statistical setting, so we have speculated that - in an extremely conservative way here - that on that track there could be up to 50% of allelic dropouts, so an extremely conservative value. Despite... So 50% could be a drop-out. No. In the comparison we hypothesized that there could be even 50% drop-out. Despite this, the results of our statistical analysis are, in our opinion, extremely clear: there are three subjects that have a very low probabilistic value, in the inclusion hypothesis, and a subject that has an extremely high value. And on the basis of what is, I repeat, the verbal conversion of this value, our conclusion is a strong support to the inclusion hypothesis. I get it. The last clarification, again to another statement, here on page 15, about the nature of matter. You say that "it prevents, especially the conservation, the evaluation of the biological nature of the" trace I "," the biological nature of "trace I". Then you define it as "fluid". Then another time you defined it as "biological material". In reality the "track I" from the Conti-Vecchiotti report seems to have been analyzed for the genetic examination of blood. Can you clarify this situation? That is, there is an element
in the fluid, in your statement, that makes you think of blood, also in relation to the activities carried out by the Conti-Vecchiotti? So, I think it is very clearly indicated in our expertise that, being the subject of our analysis, an intermediate product of processing, so it has already been worked; we did not leave the trace, so from the cotton-fioc pick, but we started from an extract of DNA, which is an intermediate of the processing. This DNA extraction procedure - as we have explained - game strength pulls off some trace components that are used to diagnose blood, saliva, or anything else. So having the sample pulled out of itself precluded this possibility. We have pointed out that there are other developing molecular methods, but in this case extraction would have to take place with a protocol other than the one that was made. This is very clear, but when she says "prevents the evaluation of biological nature," she actually has the report, where on page 7 Conti-Vecchiotti makes clear that a generic blood analysis was made on all traces - A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I - including I, and is a negative reaction. So you can - I understand - affirm that it is not blood anyway. Lawyer, it was not this... Regardless of the statement. This was not the exam that was entrusted to the Experts. Sure. We did not tell the Experts to re-evaluate the work done, otherwise we gave him a job saying "you see all the reports that have been made and filed, and you see if they are correct in your opinion." The Court did not consider it to do so because we introduced an element that was frankly extraprocessed, in the sense that we can not give an accreditation to a Consultant rather than another. Then the Court will evaluate, together with the contribution of the Parties, what to credit. But it would have seemed strange to me that the perpetrators today have taken as their own an evaluation made by other perpetrators and that it is the case. So I will evaluate it and discuss it, but it was not the subject of their examination, and frankly I do not know how they could answer that, unless I understood it badly. That's exactly right.
He was out of the expertise. Then, if we want to introduce more arguments, we would miss it, let's see whether it is the case. But this was not a topic of expertise. But I did not ask for an evaluation of the documents, but I asked about the statements on page 15, when you say "prevents the evaluation of the biological nature of the trace", in fact the biological track evaluation had already been analyzed because it you have the document. I said that. Was not it necessary to specify this? But it prevents them, Lawyer. I ask... It prevents them. No, no, it was just to make it clear. They are here today urged to carry out this Court's assessments and findings that they have directly carried out. If we then have to tell what they have read in the acts, we have already read this in the papers. This is not their job. I insist on this aspect, that is to say, we can not put something in the mouth of ours that someone else said in another procedural act. But I did not... AN, I was not saying this. Eh, but it seems to me, Lawyer, have patience. You insist on saying: on page 15 you say it is not possible to extract... No, no...... in fact it has already been done. No, no, no...
We take action. What should we say? We take note that it has already been done, but they can not tell them. They have already explained to the Major that by extracting the trace with the cotton-fioc, that type of process, now made, no longer allowed them to test the biological nature. That is, and this is the expertise. What has happened before has happened before and will be the subject of our assessment, but it can not be asked by the Experts. I believe... I do not know, I do not go because... I get it.... I do not like to repeat myself, in short. It's clear. It gives the sense of age, that is, but in short, I would like to limit the damage. Then I conclude, the last clarification. Because I realized there was a first quality certificate in 2008 and then a credit in 2012. There are two different certifications. Here, but so did your lab activities before 2008 and before 2012 have been made without these certificates? And is this always in line with international protocols? Besides, I do not see what I can... anyway... It's a general question, just as the Attorney made it... Yes. Let's say, this is a choice... AVV. BY VEDOVA -... who wanted to better understand the certification procedures.... to say, it is a choice of the Arms of Carabinieri, who decides at some point that the laboratories that make this service of the Scientific Police, from a certain point in time decide to invest resources and
people on this project. We have, moreover, been government agencies, the first to get accreditation, so what we did was in the timing and availability of the Carabinieri Army. Have you been the first to have obtained credit in 2012? As a governmental body of Police Forces. All right, thank you. Thanks, AN. Clearly, thank you. Thank you, Lawyer. Are there any other questions? Are the Parties Concluded? President Then I have two fast ones in conclusion. It seemed to me to understand, but with all the limits of my total ignorance in this matter, from this sample you have discovered, then from this amount, you extracted two quantities to proceed to two distinct analyzes. You said right before that, being a quantity, a material, you could... two, three, five, until... you could parcel it until it was parcelable. Then the question is this: why did you choose two, and not three, four, five? Is there a minimum quantity that best guarantees the result, or is the choice arbitrary? I do not know if I was clear in the question. Yes, yes, yes, it's clear. Of course the choice... here too, the indications of the entire scientific community in complex cases include the words, we can directly quote, "at least two repetitions." This is the indication. Clearly our choice of not doing three or four is because we had to find the right compromise between putting a substantial amount and repeating the analysis, so the right compromise... So there was a risk that a lower amount would not yield a reliable result. Exactly. In cash, let's say.